The Ootchy-Kootchy Rule

Why couples who show the most public affection are more likely to divorce.

People who define marriage mostly as romance are more likely to put their own needs over the needs of the partnership and 1-1/2 times more like to divorce. These are the 2010 findings of the University of Virginia National Marriage Project. And they accord perfectly with my husband’s “Ootchy-Kootchy” rule. In his experience, the couples that are the mostly physically demonstrative in public (and that have the most nauseating pet names for each other!) – you know the ones I mean – have the lowest rate of marital success.

What gives?

I think there are a few reasons that explain the high divorce rate.

One is that frequently all that public display is exactly that – a performance for the audience. It’s not about how you feel about each other; it’s more about how the world feels about you. “Look at that gorgeous couple.” “They seem so in love.” It’s all about the image, the show. It’s about a romantic scene (too many movies?) and not about reality. It may even be about being in love with the idea of love. But it’s certainly not evidence of a deep and committed relationship.

Secondly, most people who truly care about each other, while occasionally affectionate in public, recognize that the true expression of love is an intimate and private concern. They don’t want to cheapen it by public proclamation and performance. They don’t want their privacy violated; their unique and special relationship gawked at by complete strangers, widely observed, or even marveled at. It will take away some of its special character. It’s too precious to risk.

Thirdly, the problem with romance and ootchy-kootchy is that it’s all about some fictional fantasy. Original romance was all about unrequited love. It could stay in the clouds but it never actually existed. It was never required to withstand the test of dirty diapers, unpaid bills and leaky faucets. Dinner doesn’t have to be made, homework doesn’t require doing and the garbage doesn’t have to be taken out. Reality can’t possibly compete.

True romance is in the giving, not the taking.

And yet it’s reality and not romance that ultimately has more staying power. And in that reality, it’s the people who don’t put their own needs first who have the most successful marriages. It’s not about giving up on romance but it’s about recognizing that true romance is in the giving, not the taking. It’s putting your spouse’s needs first. It’s about attending to the internal demands of the marriage and ignoring the rest of the world. All that counts is the two of you.

No one else needs to see the affection to prove the relationship is real. No one else needs to experience the giving. In fact, a truly holy union doesn’t allow anyone else in, particularly strangers at the mall or bus stop!

Keeping a relationship private also helps preserve it. The more public exposure, the more the intensity of a situation dissipates. We need to guard our relationships from external perspectives and interference.

It’s time to put the affection back in the home where it belongs. It’s time to put the romance back on the fiction shelf. And it’s time to dig deep and put in the effort to make a substantial relationship, based on shared goals and values, and good character. And it’s time to be much more concerned about our private behavior than about public response.

About the Author

Emuna Braverman has a law degree from the University of Toronto and a Masters in in Clinical Psychology with an emphasis on Marriage and Family Therapy from Pepperdine University. She lives with her husband and nine children in Los Angeles where they both work for Aish HaTorah. When she isn''t writing for the Internet or taking care of her family, Emuna teaches classes on Judaism, organizes gourmet kosher cooking groups and hosts many Shabbos guests. She is the cofounder of www.gourmetkoshercooking.com.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 28

(26)
Anonymous,
August 9, 2012 6:46 PM

A out of control addict

Dated and married a man who did a lot of this in public, and I hated it because it was so disrespectful....it got more and more out of control as did his drinking behavior. Forced to leave him due to more abuse..he I beleive is and was a sociopath, with deep personality disorders . It was the most difficult relationship I have ever been in. There are many many out there like this, as proven to me by my last two experiences with men who were frauds and sex criminals as well. They ly in wait for their victims and they can't get your co-operation they will force you via date rape drugs, alcohol, or pure force. Every day one has to be very careful who you are associating with....use good judgement and run at the hint of impropriety....I mean RUN!

(25)
Michal,
June 28, 2012 9:24 AM

It's not that simple

"Why couples who show the most public affection are more likely to divorce" - this is a statement that is NOT supported by the study you cite, it simply says the ideas of romance come in the way. But that might be simply the expectations the couple has from another, not their public affection.
I found this article overly simplistic- look at the other comments here who state that their are married for more than 27/40 years AND show affection in public!

(24)
Biggest fan,
June 16, 2012 9:35 PM

Mrs. Braverman is so so right!!!!!!

As usual, well thought out and well written! I always love reading Mrs. Braverman's articles!

(23)
SusanE,
June 16, 2012 3:52 PM

For Better or Worse

There is nothing more loving than a husband taking his wifes hand walking in the park, or on the street, or navigating through a party....or an arm around each other on a cold day. A peck on the cheek or on the lips in public is a sign of affection, but not an improper public display.
There is also nothing worse or more Barnum and Bailey Circus than a public proposal, the flash of a large surprise birthday party, the bestowing of expensive gifts to be seen in public. Those things are about the giver, look at me and what I am doing and not about the receiver, certainly not love and affection for one another. Some women and men simply don't know the difference.

(22)
Just A Man,
June 14, 2012 6:49 PM

In public or anywhere else -- Emuna -- you need affection

The key here is AFFECTION.
The warmth of the human touch is priceless.
It is also a basic human need.
To withhold this human need under any guise is sacrilege.
You offend mankind counseling against displays of affection between loving family members.
Obviously you are acting out -- dare I say -- lashing out at others who you perceive as getting the kind of attention you so desperately seek.

(21)
Bill Morgan,
June 14, 2012 3:19 PM

PDA (public display of affection) is not always indicative of divorce.

I have been married for 41 years to the same women. Every time I go to the nursing home to see her, I greet her with one kiss on the lips, and later, when I leave I do the same. I do not kiss her publicly to impress the people around me. I do it because I want to remind her that she is the most special person in my life and that I love her so much.

(20)
Ann,
June 14, 2012 5:02 AM

disagree

I strongly disagree with your conjecture. My husband and I have been married for 27 years. We are ver happy together, and we greatly enjoy holding hands , or walking arm in arm. Likewise, we often kiss in public. We do not do it because we are in public, but simply because that is usually where we say hello and goodbye to one another- because of work.

(19)
anonymous 2,
June 14, 2012 12:35 AM

disagree completely

I disagree with this article completely. One in three marriages end in divorce the last I heard and it used to be one in two. I am certain to generalize the reasons for so many divorces is completely off. You cannot guess what happens between two people behind closed doors just because of what you see in public. There may be statistics but every marriage has its own dynamic and reasons for failing. This article falls short of proof. My marriage ended for other reasons none of which had to do with lack of or presence of pda's.

(18)
Anonymous,
June 13, 2012 9:02 PM

don't agree at all

i think that PDA is a good idea and haelthy for marrige

(17)
Dave,
June 13, 2012 3:56 AM

I don't know as I agree totally

I have been married to my wife (the only one) for 47 yrs. We have had three children and my youngest daughter was born with out a hip, (but God healed her instantly).I've been shot at (more than once) while on the Job. I was hit by a car while on duty and my wife was told by the doctor (in so many words) that I wouldn't live (I was back to work within a year). Through it all, my wife stayed by my side and, Yes, we hold hands in public and even occasionally Kiss in public. We also laugh a lot together.
We have had our fights. We have bad days as well as good, that includes doctor and dentist bills, car and house repairs and there are times when you wake-up in the morning and see who's sleeping along side of you and you think you must have been on drugs or drunk when you married him or her.
When love is based on a feeling your in trouble. LOVE IS A CHOICE! You choose to love him or her and that word "love" in the bible is "Agape" which means "To seek his or her's highest good. The result is that the feeling comes as a fruit of your decision.
It is also very important to dump a lot of romance into your marriage. To remember your wife (or husband) on the "non-birthdays or special occassions with a letter, card, or a weekly date night.
I enjoy my wife in pubic as well as in private. I know that we arn't special and we're no different that anyone else but public affection does not have to be putting on a show for anyone but just enjoying each other in or out of the public eye.

(16)
Zvi,
June 12, 2012 10:24 PM

Pet names = better marriage

I read a study that indicated that couples who called each other by pet names tended to stay together longer. I think the special nickname is a sign of affection and even intimacy that has a positive psychological effect. I was saddened when my wife stopped calling me by her pet name for me and I think it went hand in hand with a distance between us. Fortunately, once again she calls me by that pet name and it makes my day and gives me a feeling I am special to her. I had a couple of pet names for her and mostly continue to call her by one of those - and more likely to do so the happier I am with our relationship ... so I think there is a correlation.
Of course sugary sweet insincere pet names are likely counter productive and superficial.

(15)
Leah,
June 12, 2012 9:39 PM

Excellent article. Another interesting aspect of keeping PDA's nil is that if there should be a divorcing couple; divorced couple; a widow or a single person is search of a special someone in the immediate area if may make them feel sad. Ok, so that may be most of the continent, yet it all focuses on the issue of sensitivity towards others' feelings.

(14)
Sarah M,
June 12, 2012 7:21 PM

Off track...

have to say I found this article slightly offensive. My husband and I have been married for over 5 yrs and are very much in love..... before marriage we held hands in public but that was all.... after marriage we commonly show PDA. I have found that those who have G-d as the head and are madly in love will show PDA more often... do we get crude in our PDA? No, a kiss, a hug, hand holding, his arm around my waist, him slapping my backside sometime *blush*... do we do it for those around us? No we do it so the other knows that we have eyes only for them and that no matter what is around us we want all to know the other is the love of our life. It is not fantasy or a romance novel mindset. We know the hardship of "dirty diapers, unpaid bills, and leaky faucets" but showing our love to each other in a tasteful manner is what makes those things bearable. Also, a little tasteful PDA keeps your life exciting and that is not a bad thing :) ~SM

(13)
W Guest,
June 12, 2012 5:45 PM

Again, excellent article!

I think the author has stated it perfectly; the greatest and truest expression of a couple's love belongs to the couple, not the world. It doesn't stop them from being affectionate in public, but it their public displays are as good as it gets, how sad is that?

(12)
Anonymous,
June 12, 2012 3:58 PM

So, so so so wrong

You need a basis of passion for couples to put up with each other's foibles.
My 1st marriage of 20 years ended because frankly she didn't have any romantic connection to me whatsoever. When the tech economy tanked in 2001 there was no 'glue' to hold it together ... even with 3 children ranging from 6 to 18 years old at the time. She spent the last year of the marriage holed up in the bedroom reading romance novels. Clearly she yearned for romance in her life, just not from me. Although I give her credit for trying during our reconciliations.
My 2nd (common law) marriage has withstood far greater crises and disappointments because the passion makes it wonderful no matter what happened.

(11)
Anonymous,
June 12, 2012 3:32 PM

It is the old problem of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I totally accept that as Torah Jews we must behave within halachic strictures,That being said, public effection in public, if sincere is not wrong.

(10)
Barak,
June 12, 2012 3:21 PM

Long Time Aish Fan Thinks This Article Is Ridiculous!

While some couples who show affection in public seem to do it more for the benefit of others, I know plenty of couple married for many years in deeply committed relationships who hold hands or walk arm in arm in public and I think its is wonderful!
For these couples It's not a show at all, but a sign of true and sincere affection for one another. Emuna, you have painted this subject with too broad of a brush. Trying to justify your views regarding modesty or trying to justify the views of Orthodox Judaism with regard to modesty with a false argument as you have presented will simply lead to people giving less credence to your future columns.
If you want to promote the Orthodox view of modesty, that's fine. But do it in a reasonable and non prejudicial fashion without extreme or nonsensical declarations such as "couples who display affection in public are more likely to divorce".
Respectfully submitted,
Barak F, M.D.

Anonymous,
June 13, 2012 5:19 PM

I agree

This comment is 100%right!

(9)
Bobbee,
June 12, 2012 3:08 PM

Holding hands is good!

Good article, and I know where you're coming from as I have an extremely frum daughter & son-in-law who do not consider any form of PDA to be snius. BUT I don't agree about the unsuitabilty of holding hands or using pet names. (extreme PDAs excluded!) My husband & I have been married, Baruch Hashem, for 49-1/2 years! We always use our pet name for each other, and hold hands often - in a movie theatre or ocassionally walking in the street. It's an unspoken way of saying I love you! I don't believe that romance belongs only in the home. We love each other wherever we are!

(8)
Anonymous,
June 12, 2012 3:03 PM

Viewpoint highly suspicious.

In my opinion Mrs. Braverman is a prude and envious of public displays of affection. Feelings of love are not place specific, but should be discrete such as holding hands, an arm around the other, a special smile in a public setting; maybe OMG a liitle peck on the cheek. Relating divorce to PDA is ridiculous. I think the author should re-examine her viewpoint.

(7)
Andy,
June 12, 2012 2:33 PM

a good point but don't murder a great song

With all respect to your husband, and for sure not as misleading as confusing the Rambam with Ramban The phrase describing romance at its most base physical only level is not ootchy kootchy.The correct wording is hootchie cootchie from the great Willie Dixon song"I'm your Hoochie Coochie Man" I strongly suggest any blues enthusiaists google you tube to hear Muddy Waters version of this classic. As it relates to your article readers/listeners can draw their own conclusions as to if we were created to share this gift publicly, or even in private with many, or is it a gift to be reserved for a single private intimate relationship?

(6)
Anonymous,
June 12, 2012 1:38 PM

Private vs. public

Until I became religious and understood the Jewish perspective on this issue, I thought maybe there was something wrong or repressed about me because I was instinctively reluctant to engage in much PDA with girlfriends. My parents' PDAs were rare, but at affection at home was generous between them. Though not observant, they knew that physical affection is special and best reserved for private time and space. It turns out that I had picked up from them an inherent sense of modesty that is now for me a manifestation of a desire for holiness.

(5)
Anonymous,
June 12, 2012 1:33 PM

Good points, but too extreme

The whole PDA problem is valid, the superficiality of performance love is real.But the sarcasm a/b those whose love overflows into the public sector is uncalled for and a little inaccurate. Romance too has its time and place, and for better or worse, people care a/b their images, and its nice to feel that others (especially those that care a/b u) can see judiciously, that you're happy in your marriage.

(4)
Regina,
June 11, 2012 5:16 PM

Totally agree with the article

I remember when some of our more secular friends and family was almost expecting a certain amount of PDA and thought that we perhaps we weren't attracted to one another when we failed to oblige. Nothing could be further from the truth, and something is to be said for keeping private things PRIVATE.

(3)
J,
June 11, 2012 3:47 AM

For the most part I agree but a complete lack of emotion will turn us into cold robots

I think the author has some good points, but it should be noted that we are human beings who require attention and emotion, and sometimes you just don't want to have to wait 6 hours for a peck on the cheek until you get home from wherever you happened to be 'in public'...I think its great to have discipline and create a 'public/private' barrier/boarder for the relationship, but if we are so adament about being 'stiffs' in the public realm and not even holding hands when we want to connect with someone, we are doomed to become cold hearted and overly rational - too much head, too little heart.

(2)
Adina,
June 10, 2012 1:12 PM

A caveat

I think you're mostly right, but I would add the caveat that it's different for newlyweds. I remember as a newlywed going a little overboard with the PDA, but I do think that's perfectly normal. After all, newly married couples are insecure in the new relationship and do have that need to announce their love to the world; they also haven't been hit with reality just yet. But as life happens and the shiny newness goes away, they do start being less nauseating. My husband and I, like everyone else, eventually landed back on earth, and came to appreciate privacy, though we do still sometimes hold hands and call each other "hon" in public. Basically, I think your premise is correct, but if it's a newlywed couple doing the oochie koochie, give them a chance to return to earth before assuming they are unhealthily insecure.

(1)
Anonymous,
June 10, 2012 11:14 AM

I get your point

but I disagree with "put romance back on the fiction shelf". The Rabbis explain the reason for the laws of nidda are "k'dai l'chavev isha l'bbala". The laws of family purity are all about bringing romance back into the marriage, month after month after month! It's about the wife becoming that mystery woman, the woman you're forbidden to touch, for half of your married life- and then reuinting: check out the romance!

chava,
June 12, 2012 2:56 PM

Niddah time teaches showing love without touching.

The period of niddah/menstruation may be about returning romance to a marriage each month, but it's also about forcing a couple to learn to display their love & caring for one another without touch, either in public or private. I knew a woman who was the wife of a chabad rabbi. When she was giving birth, her husband was with her, but after a certain point, was halachically forbidden to touch her. The nurse who was there with them later said she had never seen a couple display such love to each other. And it was without touching, & most likely, without pet names.

I've been striving to get more into spirituality. But it seems that every time I make some progress, I find myself slipping right back to where I started. I'm getting discouraged and feel like a failure. Can you help?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Spiritual slumps are a natural part of spiritual growth. There is a cycle that people go through when at times they feel closer to God and at times more distant. In the words of the Kabbalists, it is "two steps forward and one step back." So although you feel you are slipping, know that this is a natural process. The main thing is to look at your overall progress (over months or years) and be able to see how far you've come!

This is actually God's ingenious way of motivating us further. The sages compare this to teaching a baby how to walk. When the parent is holding on, the baby shrieks with delight and is under the illusion that he knows how to walk. Yet suddenly, when the parent lets go, the child panics, wobbles and may even fall.

At such times when we feel spiritually "down," that is often because God is letting go, giving us the great gift of independence. In some ways, these are the times when we can actually grow the most. For if we can move ourselves just a little bit forward, we truly acquire a level of sanctity that is ours forever.

Here is a practical tool to help pull you out of the doldrums. The Sefer HaChinuch speaks about a great principle in spiritual growth: "The external awakens the internal." This means that although we may not experience immediate feelings of closeness to God, eventually, by continuing to conduct ourselves in such a manner, this physical behavior will have an impact on our spiritual selves and will help us succeed. (A similar idea is discussed by psychologists who say: "Smile and you will feel happy.")

That is the power of Torah commandments. Even if we may not feel like giving charity or praying at this particular moment, by having a "mitzvah" obligation to do so, we are in a framework to become inspired. At that point we can infuse that act of charity or prayer with all the meaning and lift it can provide. But if we'd wait until being inspired, we might be waiting a very long time.

May the Almighty bless you with the clarity to see your progress, and may you do so with joy.

In 1940, a boatload 1,600 Jewish immigrants fleeing Hitler's ovens was denied entry into the port of Haifa; the British deported them to the island of Mauritius. At the time, the British had acceded to Arab demands and restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The urgent plight of European Jewry generated an "illegal" immigration movement, but the British were vigilant in denying entry. Some ships, such as the Struma, sunk and their hundreds of passengers killed.

If you seize too much, you are left with nothing. If you take less, you may retain it (Rosh Hashanah 4b).

Sometimes our appetites are insatiable; more accurately, we act as though they were insatiable. The Midrash states that a person may never be satisfied. "If he has one hundred, he wants two hundred. If he gets two hundred, he wants four hundred" (Koheles Rabbah 1:34). How often have we seen people whose insatiable desire for material wealth resulted in their losing everything, much like the gambler whose constant urge to win results in total loss.

People's bodies are finite, and their actual needs are limited. The endless pursuit for more wealth than they can use is nothing more than an elusive belief that they can live forever (Psalms 49:10).

The one part of us which is indeed infinite is our neshamah (soul), which, being of Divine origin, can crave and achieve infinity and eternity, and such craving is characteristic of spiritual growth.

How strange that we tend to give the body much more than it can possibly handle, and the neshamah so much less than it needs!